The PNN prototype F242 is operative again. I’ve tested it several times in late 2016 and that’s why there is a consistently delay in the publication of Nova Astronautica issue n.150.Practically I’ve had to completely rebuild the prototype (coating included). As some parts have fused I’ve had to avoid at the best of my possibilities that this problem could happen again. I first tried to decrease the operational frequency (hence losing time), so I could use the instruments that don’t work at higher frequencies (and I don’t even know if high frequency versions exist). I also had to change again the structure of the ballistic pendulum, a substitution that made me lose months of work.January 9th update:some more details about the problems Laureti encountered with F242.I [Laureti] had, or better I tried, to avoid malfunctions due to overheating/radiation.. that is by changing the position of internal devices. In each demonstrative experiment I also have to use on a precautionary basis a chronometer to stop the power source in order to avoid further thermal malfunctions.Unfortunately F242 thermal dissipation is only passive.. however it can function longer with lower power supplies. The problem of thermal dissipation is a thorn in my side! It must be done with precise tuning for not being lumbering.. maybe with thermal fluid heat exchangers and cooling radiators that are outside my engineering skills..It’s a bit like creating a combustion engine without a radiator. Unfortunately what could be done in weeks with ASPS humble resources it takes months if not years! While I was talking with some ASPS participants I restated my aim: a patent application contextual to the commercialization, as explained in the first part of this old link [English translation here – E.N]I take for granted that operative [1] PNN patent will be copied at the speed of light with some variant (I’ve got 4 PNN variants based on the same principle) and that the only thing the patent is useful for is to have the priority of the idea and a good advertising at international level, if only to collaborate with a company that can provide the means to start selling prototypes competitive with ion propulsion.The current F242 at the equal amount of used energy is at least 7/8 times more efficient than EmDrive. In quantitative terms – as in the latest Nasa test it has been detected a thrust about 120 milligrams per kilowatt – with F242 we are at about 1 gram of thrust at 1300 W. Measurements obviously made with the means I’ve got and which I would like to verify also through the void chambers where ion engines thrusts are measured.To our past financier I’ve already said that we should create an Srl [Italian equivalent of Ltd – E.N] to sell PNN prototypes in competition with EmDrive and ion propulsion.In this regard I can rent a warehouse (I’m in part owner) to create something in small yet lethal in comparison with the “arthritic” state of the art of rocket propulsion.Obviously everything comes after incontrovertible experimental demonstrations, both with my means and with those due to possible financiers, that I’m not looking for resources with the methodology put in place by Andrea Rossi for the E-Cat.As I also say in this issue [of Nova Astronautica E.N] unfortunately I haven’t got anymore the laboratory located in a fraction of the town of Amatrice. The lab is seriously damaged after the earthquake of October 30th 2016 and in need of repairs, for which one says Italian State should provide. In order to organize new tests, at no cost for each counterpart potentially willing to finance and not time-wasters, I need at least 5-6 weeks to prepare everything.Now in addition to those who want me to conquer Mars with Asps very scarce financial resources there are also those who have arbitrarily conferred me the principle that I deliver for free the know-how of PNN always by 2017. Given the above statement on Ocasapiens (Sylvie Coyaud) [a blog of scientific divulgation belonging to an Italian newspaper – E.N] one can read:Let’s hope (Ocasapiens writes) that Laureti keeps his promise (know-how disclosure). Are you well on track for Mars mission launch? Because 2017 is near.That forced me to repeat for the umpteenth time: PNN is not for free. If it works you pay.. if one searches for the appropriation at zero cost because mankind asks for it or Santa Claus, the Pope, Europe or Ocasapiens then go back to trust in rocket propulsion or in the “bowl” (EmDrive) [From: http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2016/11/29/bugie-maledette-bugie-e-statistiche-cont/ in Italian- E.N]For those who find natural and acceptable the misappropriation of my research in ASPS we already have a striking example:years ago a physicist from University of Pisa informed me that two Japanese had seized a patent of mine and also republished it in their name with an article… all is documented in Nova Astronautica [pag.1- 13 Nova Astronautica Vol.30 124 April May June 2010] accessible to the public in Florence (Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale). Their article was filled with pedantic mathematics which had the virtue of making everything as less comprehensible as possible . Now since 2014 they also ask for money for it as one can read at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6432%28200004%2983:4%3C31::AID-ECJB4%3E3.0.CO;2-B/abstractAs I’ve always said and repeated: They’ve copied badly because they havent copied and experimented everything.From:https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/f242-is-operative-again/andIn Nova Astronautica Vol.36 n. 150 www.asps.it/vol36.htm

The PNN prototype F242 is operative again. I’ve tested it several times in late 2016 and that’s why there is a consistently delay in the publication of Nova Astronautica issue n.150.

Practically I’ve had to completely rebuild the prototype (coating included). As some parts have fused I’ve had to avoid at the best of my possibilities that this problem could happen again. I first tried to decrease the operational frequency (hence losing time), so I could use the instruments that don’t work at higher frequencies (and I don’t even know if high frequency versions exist). I also had to change again the structure of the ballistic pendulum, a substitution that made me lose months of work.

January 9th update:some more details about the problems Laureti encountered with F242.

I [Laureti] had, or better I tried, to avoid malfunctions due to overheating/radiation.. that is by changing the position of internal devices. In each demonstrative experiment I also have to use on a precautionary basis a chronometer to stop the power source in order to avoid further thermal malfunctions.

Unfortunately F242 thermal dissipation is only passive.. however it can function longer with lower power supplies. The problem of thermal dissipation is a thorn in my side! It must be done with precise tuning for not being lumbering.. maybe with thermal fluid heat exchangers and cooling radiators that are outside my engineering skills..

It’s a bit like creating a combustion engine without a radiator.

Unfortunately what could be done in weeks with ASPS humble resources it takes months if not years! While I was talking with some ASPS participants I restated my aim: a patent application contextual to the commercialization, as explained in the first part of this old link [English translation here – E.N]

I take for granted that operative [1] PNN patent will be copied at the speed of light with some variant (I’ve got 4 PNN variants based on the same principle) and that the only thing the patent is useful for is to have the priority of the idea and a good advertising at international level, if only to collaborate with a company that can provide the means to start selling prototypes competitive with ion propulsion.

The current F242 at the equal amount of used energy is at least 7/8 times more efficient than EmDrive. In quantitative terms – as in the latest Nasa test it has been detected a thrust about 120 milligrams per kilowatt – with F242 we are at about 1 gram of thrust at 1300 W. Measurements obviously made with the means I’ve got and which I would like to verify also through the void chambers where ion engines thrusts are measured.

To our past financier I’ve already said that we should create an Srl [Italian equivalent of Ltd – E.N] to sell PNN prototypes in competition with EmDrive and ion propulsion.In this regard I can rent a warehouse (I’m in part owner) to create something in small yet lethal in comparison with the “arthritic” state of the art of rocket propulsion.

Obviously everything comes after incontrovertible experimental demonstrations, both with my means and with those due to possible financiers, that I’m not looking for resources with the methodology put in place by Andrea Rossi for the E-Cat.

As I also say in this issue [of Nova Astronautica E.N] unfortunately I haven’t got anymore the laboratory located in a fraction of the town of Amatrice. The lab is seriously damaged after the earthquake of October 30th 2016 and in need of repairs, for which one says Italian State should provide. In order to organize new tests, at no cost for each counterpart potentially willing to finance and not time-wasters, I need at least 5-6 weeks to prepare everything.

Now in addition to those who want me to conquer Mars with Asps very scarce financial resources there are also those who have arbitrarily conferred me the principle that I deliver for free the know-how of PNN always by 2017.

Given the above statement on Ocasapiens (Sylvie Coyaud) [a blog of scientific divulgation belonging to an Italian newspaper – E.N] one can read:

Let’s hope (Ocasapiens writes) that Laureti keeps his promise (know-how disclosure). Are you well on track for Mars mission launch? Because 2017 is near.

That forced me to repeat for the umpteenth time: PNN is not for free. If it works you pay.. if one searches for the appropriation at zero cost because mankind asks for it or Santa Claus, the Pope, Europe or Ocasapiens then go back to trust in rocket propulsion or in the “bowl” (EmDrive)

For those who find natural and acceptable the misappropriation of my research in ASPS we already have a striking example:

years ago a physicist from University of Pisa informed me that two Japanese had seized a patent of mine and also republished it in their name with an article… all is documented in Nova Astronautica [pag.1- 13 Nova Astronautica Vol.30 124 April May June 2010] accessible to the public in Florence (Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale). Their article was filled with pedantic mathematics which had the virtue of making everything as less comprehensible as possible.

My name is Paul March and I was the main lab experimenter for the NASA/JSC/Eagleworks Lab up until my retirement last year at the end of September, 2016. I really do appreciate the development pains you are going through having walked that path since 1998. That said, unless you are willing to share the workings of your invention as the EMdrive folks have with the working of the EMdrive on the EMdrive forum, how do you expect to get any help developing your PNN device? There are lots of folks on this forum who would love to help you but you have to be willing to give as well as receive if you want this community's help.

Now, from what little I have seen of your postings it appears that you may have built a VHF or UHF RF frequency driven Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) based on Jim's Woodward's Mach Effect conjecture if my recollections of your device is close to the mark, see attached summary of the data I could find on the web. I have also built a self-contained, RF remote controlled, battery powered EMdrive vehicle for a Cavendish Balance test rig at NASA/JSC that also had to deal with approximately 350W of thermal energy that was generated by the 120W RF amplifier used in the test rig. To solve this heat radiator problem we used a phase change wax that would absorb the waste heat from the RF amplifier during the typical ~30 minute long data runs with little temp rise during the data run. Have you tried this approach in your test rig yet?

I thank you for your appreciation but little fortunate events in the past of my association (ASPS www.asps.it ) have led me to be who I am.We recently established an operational team of persons ( all Italian) in order to patent and market very quickly. Now I can’t talk about the details and the mathematics and physics of pnn (which many of you have asked me controversially) I can speak only when I can take an international patent and have the economic resources to defend it.In 2016 I tried to offer experimental tests of pnn in a closed box in my large lab (in mountains Appennini) far from Rome .I invited some american people in 2016 before the earthquake in the Amatrice area, but no one wanted to come. Now my lab is no longer usable (Figure below)We do not want anything without first demonstrating fully in accordance with all required experimental feature of pnn. My hope is that it will happen this year.The pnn is based on something that no previous theory has ever thought.

In it the Japanese physicists have stated some things which are rather obvious to anybody with a basic grasp of electromagnetism and optomechanics. Their entire point is that two dipoles will repel each other (attached is their own summary of their concept). It is very tempting to be sarcastic here since these observations are simply the correct interpretation of what Maxwell and Hamilton have talked about many decades prior. The entire paper makes a rather large and complex non-point, much like saying two magnets will repel each other, or that a laser will perform work on a reflective surface.

The distinction between near and far field is reassuring and there are no obvious mistakes in the paper, however the paper simply talks about electromagnetism and the relationship between E/H fields and photons which carry said field. There is no new information in it and it does not make sense in the context of a patent which "is based on something that no previous theory has ever thought."

Let us venture a guess however: you wish to make (or have already made) a dipole repeller which repels one dipole off of another dipole. You assume that if one dipole has a weaker directional field than another that the entire system will logically accelerate in the direction which exerts more radiation pressure. There's a slight problem.

Q. What are your dipoles physically attached to? Why can we not simply repel a weak magnet off of a strong magnet inside a box and achieve lift off and over unity?

A. The answer can be expressed simply. Two static dipoles, no matter what their relative or absolute strengths, cannot repel off of each other and maintain the same repulsion over a larger distance - much like electromagnetically levitating trains do not fly off into space, given constant electric fields.

When the distance is constrained between the two dipoles, say if they are connected by walls made of atoms which share electrons carrying the momentum you have "created", the work done on one side will balance out on the other side as a voltage via induced dipoles all along the connecting molecules*. For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Conservation of energy cannot be violated. The directional force is balanced as potential energy. Hence, dipole repellers will only ever be useful for space if they selectively propel off of the Earth, Sun, Solar System, Galaxy, Local Cluster, Supercluster etc. This is very unlikely since i) not only are purely static electric fields more of a mathematical flight of fancy debunked by QED, but also ii) building a system with enough power to take advantage of such repulsion is highly unfeasible (not to mention the scary effects of such high energies on the systems in question).

Quote

The pnn is based on something that no previous theory has ever thought.

You have made the absolute claim that your system is NOT a Mach Effect Thruster, EM drive nor any other known optomechanical system: perhaps you can elaborate on which dipoles your system interacts with? Remember: any device with two variably strong dipoles will not self-accelerate, no matter which geometry or input!*

*Unless, it seems, you have an asymmetric resonant cavity such as the EM drive where the top does not communicate perfectly with the bottom and hence there can exist a directional imbalance in the fields.

A series of answers of my old patent published in the ASPS issue Nova Astronautica (www.asps.it/na.htm ) n. 77 Vol.18 pp.1-17 1998.

Note: It is not correct to say that the dipoles D1 and D2 interact with each other. It should instead say that each dipole with its current interacts with the magnetic field B which invests the dipole

1) The dipoles D1 and D2 are firm and bound to each other in reference of the fixed stars at a distance of ¼ wave : fig.1

2) waves emitted by the two dipoles with the relative phases: fig.2 and fig. ondarm

3) the thrust forces on each dipole. The forces F1 and F2 of each dipole have the same direction and towards : fig.4

4) Outline of the current dipoles: fig4b

5) Scheme of the waves emitted by the dipoles with the relative phases: fig. 5

However, there are problems in achieving sperimentalemente something that seems correct theoretically Indeed F242 is NOT done so and I repeat the already I said: The pnn is based on something that no previous theory has ever thought.

I forgot to say because it seemed obvious that the force on the two dipoles is the Lorentz Force i l B

where i is the current, l the length of the half wave dipole, and B is the magnetic field.

F1 and F2 work alternately on the two dipoles according to the sequence shown in Figure 4.

And at the theoretical level, with the appropriate phase sequence, of each of the two dipoles , we have forces having the same direction and orientation.I called SC23 the two dipoles. SC meant Spazio Cosmico.

I do not think the Emdrive work as SC23 even if it could give an explanationonly in terms of classical electrodynamics.

On the contrary I think that the Emdrive functions with the F242 procedure, but it really hurt. With a sarcastic judgment seems a PNN with square wheels :-)

SC23 is the standard procedure to violate Newtonian action reaction principle by standard electrodynamics,As said Moretti in this link www.asps.it/azione.htm :at theoretical level Newton third principle has no meaning in electrodynamics

I wish to add the following:All asps prototypes since 1998 are variant of the theory of SC23The prototype P26MR05 (2005) on ballistic pendulum shown in www.asps.it/azione.htmworks at about 432 Mhz (F242 works at about 144 Mhz). In the movie http://www.asps.it/pnn2005.mpg (figure down)You can see that prototype moves toward the field meter when power is "full on" and the field meter goes off scale.Very little displacement is shown by the displacement of a transverse laser light on the bow of the prototype.

A video clip of 2005 similar to the experiment on pnn (on a ballistic pendulum) shown at the Sheraton May 3 2005 http://www.asps.it/qct05.mpgThe old pnn thrust was low and therefore needed to be detected using suitable instruments such as laser cross on the bow of the prototype and two inductors proximity on the back. Below the field meter. The meter goes off the scale when the system is turned on .

I believe I know exactly what this is. It looks like what I like to call a near field reverse magnetic phased array but I can't tell from the information give exactly. I read here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43756.0 that is uses frequencies in the MHz which is near the frequency I believe the device needs to run at but also needs a dielectric to shorten the wavelength so that 1/4 lambda is a small distance to operate in the near field region and in one image I have seen of this it does suggest a separation of 1/4 lambda. It also uses control of phase here

phase shifters are made of ferrite and it would be improvident to think that they can maintain the fields phase as it happens without them. The fields through ferrites can operate in maximum phase, thrust in a direction with a phase of 0,360,720 degrees, or with 180,540 degrees that is thrust in opposite direction (quadrature 90,450 degrees)

As the ferrite cores work at millions of oscillations per second, the ferrite reaches temperatures that are critical for the whole system

I can't tell what your using for a dielectric but it looks like in this image you are using a dielectric which appear to be between the coils. I am guessing the coils are wrapped around the ferrite disks? Is the dielectric a ferrite also? I suspect from one statement the ferrite is a phase shifter?

If a near field reverse magnetic phased array does work I have stated because there is not enough momentum in emitted light that I would suspect instead an induced flow in the vacuum possibly. Your statements about your ballistic pendulum deflection test here:

in short words under a constant power input the thrust slowly builds up over time and once the power is turned off the prototype keeps thrusting, like if it had to work off the previously “accumulated” thrust.

Suggest to me an induced flow in the vacuum that seems to carry momentum. They suggest eliminating relativity from the equation and I am not sure how they arrive at that but I do think if you can induce the vacuum to carry you then you may be able to counter relativistic effects.

I have been looking for some test of this reversed magnetic near field phased array so that I would know for sure if it works. If you have any evidence this is what I think it is and if it works I would be very interested. Thanks